Search the Community

RogerWho, first of all THANK YOU for an awesome discussion. You and I may never completely agree, but I thoroughly enjoy reading in detail the reasons why you have issues with V and prefer the storytelling mechanics and direction in IV. Truth be told, if everyone who took issues with V or preferred IV took the time out of their day AND controlled their tempers enough to actually have a civil debate like this, the forum would be a much better place to discuss the game. I will reiterate that while we don't agree, in no way do I think you are wrong. But your posts have the virtue of both calling your opinions opinions AND being expressed with enough humility to understand that tastes and preferences play a far more central role in why a player might enjoy one over the other. I like how you are one of the first people on your side of this debate to articulate all your ideas without a single condescending and disparaging comment, and without any need to call your opposition posters "fanboys" or "feverish defenders." Just a point I want to reiterate, since you mentioned you are a writer. I am a novelist and so I understand where you are coming from with regard to different ways of telling a story and I really enjoy discussing this with you! By the way, I particularly liked a point you made above about how Rockstar could create a more streamlined, focused storyline while maintaining the same batsh*t-crazy gameplay and immense variety in the landscape and gameplay motifs that we find in both V and (to an even greater degree in some ways) San Andreas. While this is nowhere near as important to me since I am not willing to hold game developer writers to the same stringent rules as I would a novelist, screenwriter, or TV writer, it wouldn't bother me if Rockstar went your way. Now if you and I were kings of Rockstar, this may happen. The problem is that the Houser's, for whatever reasons probably having to do with some sense of authenticity, always needs to inextricably marry the gameplay to the story. Look at San Andreas. I know you see that as cohesive, but that story is freaking insane. Alien technology, Black Ops missions with Toreno, combined with hood rat gang-banging and drug deliveries, with Casino ownership, and CJ even buys an air strip, sneaks into a military ship to steal a Hydra, works for the Triads, screws the Mafia, and manages to abscond a jet pack in the story? Don't get me wrong, I love it. And if you want Rockstar to compartmentalize the story in such a way that the more serious missions are more serious, and the bat-sh*t crazy ones are over the top, then fine. To me, however, either way isn't a deal breaker. I am kind of whatever about that, so long as the bat-sh*t crazy is still there, like it is in both V and SA. If you need the missions and story more compartmentalized, then lol Godspeed to you, Sir. I could honestly give a rat's ass either way. Yes, but I believe the point that Tonesta is bringing up is that Rockstar served up the wild and crazy with a very well-grounded set of physics. Just Cause 2 admittedly tries to do crazy in the gameplay with a little more realism, but Saints Row is just off the hook nuts! I should make clear that I am a HUGE fan of all the Saints Row games, and have been since 2006 when the game launched exclusively on the 360. Just Cause 2 remains one of my all time favorite games to this day, by the way. But for a sense of incredible attention to detail, coupled with a real down to Earth realism that seems to be very aptly juxtaposed to the over the top elements in a game like V, nobody does that amalgamation anywhere near as good as Rockstar. I think that's what Tonesta was alluding to in his posts. And his point is well taken. Actually, I had no idea about this. I honestly thought that GTA IV was the biggest selling GTA in the franchise history, until V came along and blew the doors off of all sales numbers. Thanks for the info! I agree with your analysis of IV, by the way, Osho.

But I would argue that none of those came close to offering the variety of GTAV. To pick the two I know best.....Watch Dogs had a beautifully realized and detailed version of Chicago, but relatively repetitive gameplay (missions and side missions were generally either drive + shootout/chase, or hacking puzzles) and a consistently somber tone. I very much enjoyed it, but I didn't find it had the replay value of GTAV (and I'm just talking about the SP game here). Certainly curious about Watch Dogs 2, mind you. The Saints Row series, meanwhile, had all the bat**** crazy gameplay you could look for - but fell down on the map. It throws as much randomness in gameplay at you as you could handle, but did it in a fairly bland setting that didn't really merit much exploration. Again, it's all down to each individual's preference - but I personally find GTAV to be overall the biggest, most interesting sandbox with the largest variety of things to do in it (on mission and off mission), of any game I've played. And I'm happy to forgive some narrative inconsistencies or lapses in storytelling logic for the chance to enjoy such a world.

I'd say there are a lot of sandbox playgrounds... The Just Cause series, a few Far Cry games, a couple of Saints Row games, Watch Dogs, Sleeping Dogs, Prototype series, InFamous series... Not using that as an argument, just throwing the alternatives out there. There are no online alternatives unfortunately however. Shame. I'd clobber a kitten for proper Watch Dogs Online

No, I don't mean the games are similar in any way (they sure as hell aren't), just that both serve as different examples how having a specific, narrow design focus helps the overall result. We have a children story in our country about a dog and a cat baking a cake. They threw in all the stuff either considered good, from candy to bones and who knows what else. Of course at the end it wasn't edible. That's my biggest gripe with V really, how inconsistent it is when it comes to narrative and the mission structure. Another game that I feel had the same issue is Half-Life 2. So what it is, a physics playground, a platformer, a shooter, then a horror level is thrown in...? Just decide on one or a few things and streamline it. Sure there's an argument that if a game has a bit of everything, almost everyone can find something appealing, while if it's focused, it can only cater to a certain audience. Which I don't agree with; no artist worth their salt works by throwing in everything and a kitchen sink. Imagine if painters and sculptors worked that way. In fact I'll honestly rather try a game that I know is good in its own way (even though I generally like 'that way', e.g. the genre or setting) rather than the game trying to reach out to everyone. I meant expensive but yea, it can work with both terms. Now sure, the money doesn't come directly into the equation, but then I see games like say, Destiny, one of the most expensive games to make and... the result is this? It's just that if a tiny indie game studio can tell a coherent story and go through a whole character arch in a few hours with minimum resources, why can't a lot of those with $200 million budgets achieve something similar? And it's not about the money really, it's about the achievement. When I played GTA V, every once in a while I felt how the game was reaching for true excellence in something, be it drama, or comedy, or something else. I felt like I'm beginning to love this or that scene - and then, it always got killed by going into a completely different direction. Like the Trevor video I posted earlier. Okay fine, let's say the character is designed as everything he already is: a psycho, a comic relief, a broken figure and all that other stuff (that's already a lot of stuff for one character but let's run with it). But don't change the direction every couple of seconds. Give me an excellent dramatic scene with him; then maybe give me a hilarious comedy scene with him another few hours later; and if he's to talk about his childhood to make me sympathise with him, well make that yet another scene, one that will fit the narrative or mission which the game is on at the time. Don't put all of those things into one cutscene. The same goes for anything that Franklin does, same goes for Michael's family. It's all jumbled together. This is a culmination of both the 'expensive' and 'inconsistency' gripes: I'd expect that a game with such vast resources would try to reach for excellence. If it's not possible to achieve it in everything (and of course it's not), well then pick a few things that are the most important and polish those. Here we are also coming back to the mission count. Obviously, if it was made in a way I'm suggesting, then the game would need to be a lot longer. I mean, Trevor alone would need to have multiple story/mission arcs just for himself. Michael too, as his family stuff would need to change gradually. Franklin as well, instead of Stretch popping out and then back in, you'd get to know him as the antagonist, same going for a lot of other side characters around Franklin. You might not feel cheated of the development such as it is, but I certainly do. And again here comes to focus: if there are too many characters to flesh out each one, then pick just a few and concentrate on those, give each one a good introduction, some scenes to know them and then a proper send off. Apart from the narrative, I also have a similar gripe with the environment. If I just stand in one spot, I see the potential greatness: it looks amazing, regardless whether it's in the city or in the country. I can almost smell the atmosphere. But, drive just for a few seconds and the illusion disappears. Suddenly I'm in a completely different area of the city because each one consists only of a few blocks. The desert suddenly ends because it's not really a desert, it's just a few hundred meters wide. Again, if you can't make everything justice, then focus on one thing and reach for excellence. Don't make a tiny playground of LA and a tiny desert. Pick one and stick with it. Make it fit the narrative you want to tell. Don't stop half-way and go in a completely different direction. I mean I still like bits and pieces of GTA V. Sure, the production values are amazing, but as a whole package, it wasn't reaching for the stars the same way like almost every other R* game. It wasn't that unreasonable to expect some more. Saints Row 2, which I don't enjoy that much due to all the crazyness, I still respect because they were aiming for one thing and achieved that. Similarly even if you dislike IV, you gotta (or should, I think) respect that it achieved what it was aiming for. Similarly if GTA V went in a completely different direction, but was focused, I might not have liked it, but at least I'd respect it. So coming around to your question... In fact I can't agree that GTA V excelled what it was aiming for... Because I honestly can't tell what it was. Not sure if you mean me but absolutely it's all subjective, all the time. This is my take. It's completely fine if GTA V exactly fit your style or your expectations or otherwise gave you just the right amount of everything. Just explaining my side here. Essentially I'm trying to figure out whether a discussion about subjective stuff is even possible. I'm pretty sure it is even though it's certainly not perfect at this stage. I mean, we can either say 'I like X, I dislike Y' and be done with it, or we can at least try to elaborate.

V does abuse it's cussing privileges way to much, compared to even San Andreas. Cussing looses it's impact after it's been used 38 times in one cutscene when the average cutscene lasts 5 minutes. And there's no need for that much cussing either, half the time characters are just having a normal discussion yet add in 16 expletives just because. Saints Row 1-4 didn't need to drop F-bombs every five words, and they're also criminal central stories, why does GTA need it? Even more egregious since SR is about a street gang (or at least was) so you'd think they'd cuss non stop. Nope, they cuss only when it sounds appropriate, not V's cluster F-bomb fest. By this point, I'd find a new Mario game funner by now compared to V. Not necessarily compared to Online, but definitely V. If only because Mario games have a ton of replayability and creativity in them, not this "create your own heist, providing it's option A or option B" nonsense. Highlighted a major flaw in this argument, people keep saying GTA is about freedom and creativity, something V gets tons of praise for. Yet IV gets criticized here for... allowing the player to kill Goldberg with a baseball bat. You're not ordered to do it, the mission won't fail if you don't kill him with a bat. It's an option, like if you were trying to escape from the LSPD with a golf cart, the option is there if you want it. Is killing Goldberg with a bat stupid? Sure. Is it any less stupid than trying to complete Monkey Business with a baseball bat? No. I'm not going to try and justify IV's mission creativity here since it is a lot of Go A/Do B stuff. But at least IV's missions give you the option to do stuff like you mentioned, like aforementioned "killing the target before he gets in his car", whereas V instantly puts any and all car chases in motion instantly eliminating that option.

^ it might be a fake chilliad (like its an skybox texture) similiar thing was done in one of early saints row 4 builds (aka saints row 3.5)

I'm going to try and break it down so it is easier to read. =================================================================================================== Ok I have been holding on hopelessly for a long time now for some sort of story expansion for GTAV and i have just about given up. There has been nothing that has impressed me or held my interest on the market for the last few years. I felt at a low point in my videogame life. Then i saw this!! This trailer gave me a buzz i haven't had about a game since the V trailers. It has a real raw cool vibe to it. But it got me thinking (and worrying)about the future of the GTA series. I loved mafia 2, cool time period, great graphics, great characters, brilliant storytelling, and a badass hollywood-esque attitude. Sure it didn't have the same sort of free open world, ripe with activities as its at the time competitor (GTA IV) but that was one of the many things they could improve on next time around. This trailer amongst the others shows better graphics, a bigger world, somehow a better more intriguing story, more in depth characters, and the move to shake things up with a new orleans styled backdrop with a black protagonist yet still tell a mafia based story is just genius. BUT it is relatively easy for them to do! They have one set of rules to follow, one genre...serious crime drama! They can change the setting and characters and improve the worlds etc a hundred times over and still have a winning formula! What does this have to do with GTA your thinking? Well i just can't see where they can go next! How they can go bigger and better without upsetting one side of their fanbase? The older GTA's on the older systems were perfect for their generation. The mix of a semi-serious story, hollywood action movie throwback missions, and over the top silly side missions were acceptable when games were just games and a bit of off the cuff craziness was expected, and it never felt out of place because the story had the same amount of reslism as every other aspect of the game world. But in this generation of consoles, where the graphics are so realistic, the characters are so detailed, the stories are ever more adult and engaging the sillyness just throws you off your game and you don't know how your supposed to be feeling while your playing. For example, how atmospheric and awesome was the (spoiler) Ludendorf mission where Trevor and Micheal finally come head to head and dig up Brad!? The pinnacle of the story, real emotion, best friends, betrayal and a antihero heavily outnumbered in a shootout in a dimly lit graveyard. Then you fly back to Los Santos and have a silly pshyco rampage mission with Trevors superpowers ability and then switch to Franklin and have a jet ski race cause your nesr the beach....and the graveyard is forgot about, and the story, and hence the IMMERSION! Which IMO is the ultimate goal of any video game. I think Rockstar realised this struggle way back and took the first steps to rectify the problems with GTA IV. If you ask me it was a huge step forward, everything about it was dark, grimy, serious yet still GTAat the core. I think this is the direction Rockstar wanted to take the series, something they could continue with and improve upon in the successing years. But (excuse me those of you i am about to diss) the 6 year old's didn't like it. "It's not GTA, it doesn't feel the same, theres no crazy crazy rampages, its no fun, i cant just run around blowing everything up with a bazooka just for the hell of it, blablabla. So naturally you've ruined it. With V Rockstar have gone out of their way to try to appease everybody, theres the story which i do love but with all it's directions and craziness just lands short of what they would really like to do, there's the good side missions i.e the off road races and parachuting and the customization options, the bad side missions like the property missions and the mother of all things that spells doom for our beloved GTA...... "We want to run around in clown suits, and christmas socks, and shoot fireworks, and have sumo races on skyscrapers". Well you've got it...it's called GTA ONLINE and it smells of death. Just look what you've done, crazy stunt loop races, 20,000ft in the air, kids begging their moms for money for shark cards so they can but this weeks supercar, 3 new items of clothing a day, zombie slasher missions, teen wolf. What was it you said about GTAIV? Doesn't feel like GTA? Well WTF is this s**t? Cos it sure don't feel like GTA to me. Anyway you've got your long time grown up fans who like s serious story with just a bit of foolery, and you've got the others, who should just go and mod saints row to include mario bros maps and be on their way. Point is i just dont know how they are going to go bigger and better without making a big crazy mess of a game. V just about got away with it, but as you know there are a lot of haters, probably the same ones who hated Iv but hey. Larger worlds mean longer stories, more crazy side missions, less time spent on what matters and more time spent on exploiting the wishes of the immature millions who'd be happy in a virtual earth sized gameworld with no story at all. Grand Theft Auto needs to mature with the rest of the gaming world and choose which path it is going to go down. Because the direction it is heading is not good for a franchise considered by many the greatest series of all time. I hope i'm wrong. Please Rockstar follow the likes of the mafia franchise and tell the stories that have gripped the fans since GTA.

why is there a saints row building? ruined.

Ok I have been holding on hopelessly for a long time now for some sort of story expansion for GTAV and i have just about given up. There has been nothing that has impressed me or held my interest on the market for the last few years. I felt at a low point in my videogame life. Then i saw this!! This trailer gave me a buzz i haven't had about a game since the V trailers. It has a real raw cool vibe to it. But it got me thinking (and worrying)about the future of the GTA series. I loved mafia 2, cool time period, great graphics, great characters, brilliant storytelling, and a badass hollywood-esque attitude. Sure it didn't have the same sort of free open world, ripe with activities as its at the time competitor (GTA IV) but that was one of the many things they could improve on next time around. This trailer amongst the others shows better graphics, a bigger world, somehow a better more intriguing story, more in depth characters, and the move to shake things up with a new orleans styled backdrop with a black protagonist yet still tell a mafia based story is just genius. BUT it is relatively easy for them to do! They have one set of rules to follow, one genre...serious crime drama! They can change the setting and characters and improve the worlds etc a hundred times over and still have a winning formula! What does this have to do with GTA your thinking? Well i just can't see where they can go next! How they can go bigger and better without upsetting one side of their fanbase? The older GTA's on the older systems were perfect for their generation. The mix of a semi-serious story, hollywood action movie throwback missions, and over the top silly side missions were acceptable when games were just games and a bit of off the cuff craziness was expected, and it never felt out of place because the story had the same amount of reslism as every other aspect of the game world. But in this generation of consoles, where the graphics are so realistic, the characters are so detailed, the stories are ever more adult and engaging the sillyness just throws you off your game and you don't know how your supposed to be feeling while your playing. For example, how atmospheric and awesome was the (spoiler) Ludendorf mission where Trevor and Micheal finally come head to head and dig up Brad!? The pinnacle of the story, real emotion, best friends, betrayal and a antihero heavily outnumbered in a shootout in a dimly lit graveyard. Then you fly back to Los Santos and have a silly pshyco rampage mission with Trevors superpowers ability and then switch to Franklin and have a jet ski race cause your nesr the beach....and the graveyard is forgot about, and the story, and hence the IMMERSION! Which IMO is the ultimate goal of any video game. I think Rockstar realised this struggle way back and took the first steps to rectify the problems with GTA IV. If you ask me it was a huge step forward, everything about it was dark, grimy, serious yet still GTAat the core. I think this is the direction Rockstar wanted to take the series, something they could continue with and improve upon in the successing years. But (excuse me those of you i am about to diss) the 6 year old's didn't like it. "It's not GTA, it doesn't feel the same, theres no crazy crazy rampages, its no fun, i cant just run around blowing everything up with a bazooka just for the hell of it, blablabla. So naturally you've ruined it. With V Rockstar have gone out of their way to try to appease everybody, theres the story which i do love but with all it's directions and craziness just lands short of what they would really like to do, there's the good side missions i.e the off road races and parachuting and the customization options, the bad side missions like the property missions and the mother of all things that spells doom for our beloved GTA...... "We want to run around in clown suits, and christmas socks, and shoot fireworks, and have sumo races on skyscrapers". Well you've got it...it's called GTA ONLINE and it smells of death. Just look what you've done, crazy stunt loop races, 20,000ft in the air, kids begging their moms for money for shark cards so they can but this weeks supercar, 3 new items of clothing a day, zombie slasher missions, teen wolf. What was it you said about GTAIV? Doesn't feel like GTA? Well WTF is this s**t? Cos it sure don't feel like GTA to me. Anyway you've got your long time grown up fans who like s serious story with just a bit of foolery, and you've got the others, who should just go and mod saints row to include mario bros maps and be on their way. Point is i just dont know how they are going to go bigger and better without making a big crazy mess of a game. V just about got away with it, but as you know there are a lot of haters, probably the same ones who hated Iv but hey. Larger worlds mean longer stories, more crazy side missions, less time spent on what matters and more time spent on exploiting the wishes of the immature millions who'd be happy in a virtual earth sized gameworld with no story at all. Grand Theft Auto needs to mature with the rest of the gaming world and choose which path it is going to go down. Because the direction it is heading is not good for a franchise considered by many the greatest series of all time. I hope i'm wrong. Please Rockstar follow the likes of the mafia franchise and tell the stories that have gripped the fans since GTA 3.

Ok So This is not Really a contest but it's good to have this up here to have a good laugh , I know a lot of you people remember making your favorite famous celebrities on saints row 2, but wouldn't you like to see how creative people can get on gta online? I would like to see people try to create Donald trump, Michael Jackson, scarface al pacino, Mr Roger's, 50 cent and more important people , post yours today

Well I'm both a SP and O player so I feel like I enjoyed V (ps3 version) to the max. I felt that both the online and SP were decent. However I always take the single player over online in all my games. Even the last Twisted Metal, which barely has sp content, I bought it solely for the sp. Even though I love online, if the game doesn't have sp it's a no buy from me (with the exception of Killing Floor). Sadly I think the next GTA will be online only or some bs like that. Oh well, it was good while it lasted. rip sweet prince. never forghetti. may u eat realistic steak in vidya gaem heaven A Saints Row reboot is our only hope now. Or maybe The Benz makes his own gta with blackjack and hookers.

Let's put online aside for one moment. GTA V is still a well made game. But for me, i can't get invested in it because... well... i had the misfortune of playing other open world titles. And when i return to V, i feels something is missing. I miss the stealth approach from Metal gear solid V. I miss the "you can steal everything" attitude of skyrim and his diverse world with tons of random missions (that are REALLY random). I miss the many interiors, shops, activities and secret places, and the ability to pick any melee weapon from Saints row 2. I miss the quick mahyem and the destructive physic of Just cause 3. I even miss the melee/brawl aspect in EFLC. GTA is obviously more polished that those games... but i feel like every game mechanic is "just ok". Everything works just fine, and there are enough content to be satisfied enough, but when you broke the game down to the single mechanics, nothing is really groundbreaking or used in its full potential.

I think Rockstar tried to improve the reward system for V because a lot of people complained about IV's lack of rewards. The problem with V's rewards is that they are more intrinsically tied to things like "how much money you have" and how far along you are in the game rather than specific rewards for specific milestones or missions. San Andreas, Vice City, and VCS were heavily reward-based games. Volition is very good with rewards in their Saints Row games. Those games have massive amounts of awesome unlocks, milestone rewards, collections rewards, and on and on. GTA III even back 15 years ago had amazing rewards. In fact, in some ways, Vice City felt like rewards were scaled back, even though they really weren't. I love unlocking all eleven weapons to every hideout with 100 HP's and firetruck missions in III. Infinite Run, powerups to the hideous, bribes, etc. III and other 3D Era GTA games feels like Rockstar wanted to really offer you a lot of rewards for specific things. I honestly think that one of the negative side effects of Rockstar trying to make IV and V more "organic" and more immersive is that most of the cool things you get in the game are more tied to realistic kinds of things. Instead of Paramedic Level 12 unlocking Infinite Sprint, for instance, you have to keep exercising. Its more realistic. Less fun. You want better armor, you don't complete level 12 Paramedic missions, you just buy it. Same for weapons upgrades, weapon availability, and such. I think Rockstar may be trying too hard to make HD Era games feel more like real life and they are losing the fun and excitement of that old school arcade-like feel of GAMES that reward you more directly for all the stupid sh*t you do. Agreed. This is probably my main gripe with the HD era. Even my beloved GTA IV.. The lack of rewards for completing side missions is really disappointing. Whilst most of the side missions in the 3D era I found tedious and not that fun the rewards they gave were worth the effort IMO. Anyway as for the question yeah it's pretty easy then again so is GTA IV. I'm not sure why they dumbed down 100% so much however. It's not a "true" 100% if you're only required to complete half of the tasks for certain requirements.

I think Rockstar tried to improve the reward system for V because a lot of people complained about IV's lack of rewards. The problem with V's rewards is that they are more intrinsically tied to things like "how much money you have" and how far along you are in the game rather than specific rewards for specific milestones or missions. San Andreas, Vice City, and VCS were heavily reward-based games. Volition is very good with rewards in their Saints Row games. Those games have massive amounts of awesome unlocks, milestone rewards, collections rewards, and on and on. GTA III even back 15 years ago had amazing rewards. In fact, in some ways, Vice City felt like rewards were scaled back, even though they really weren't. I love unlocking all eleven weapons to every hideout with 100 HP's and firetruck missions in III. Infinite Run, powerups to the hideous, bribes, etc. III and other 3D Era GTA games feels like Rockstar wanted to really offer you a lot of rewards for specific things. I honestly think that one of the negative side effects of Rockstar trying to make IV and V more "organic" and more immersive is that most of the cool things you get in the game are more tied to realistic kinds of things. Instead of Paramedic Level 12 unlocking Infinite Sprint, for instance, you have to keep exercising. Its more realistic. Less fun. You want better armor, you don't complete level 12 Paramedic missions, you just buy it. Same for weapons upgrades, weapon availability, and such. I think Rockstar may be trying too hard to make HD Era games feel more like real life and they are losing the fun and excitement of that old school arcade-like feel of GAMES that reward you more directly for all the stupid sh*t you do.

Guys, there's no need to argue. GTAIV and V are both sh*t compared GTAOnline. Now THERE is the perfect game! EDIT: For serious though, so far I enjoyed Saint's Row 2 way more than GTA4 and 5. It's pretty amazing that a series I wrote off intially as a crappy low budget GTA ripoff ended up being more fun than the last two(!) GTA releases. It's a shame that Volition decided to become sh*t as well and ruin that series to boot. The 2010s have not been kind to beloved open world franchises.

The missions being more repetitive in GTA IV is definitely a valid complaint, I just think that you don't need to go all crazy to have variety in missions. You're right. I mean the game should still focus putting mofos in the ground and breaking laws, but it should've had a little bit more to it. I mean this is GTA. It may not be Saint's Row, but it's still known for being over-the-top when comes to being a criminal. Just take a look at Vice City and San Andreas. They're missions were off the hook.

@ChiroVette Your posts make me facepalm so I had to response. Firstly your sentences looks ridiculous and that marked lines reminds me tabloids. V story after T shows up again became worse than this new Saints Row. Bullet-Proof meth addic homosexual chicken strikes back. WTF!The only good mission after I started playing as T was ending A. Non of games ending makes me more happy and delighted.

Since there are a lot of comparisons between IV and San Andreas, and V is modeled to a large extent after the philosophy of SA, let's juxtapose SA with IV: In a nutshell, San Andreas is what happens when a GTA game centers around the gameplay, the over-the-top fun, and the excitement of wild, zany action. It is a game that you can literally laugh out loud while playing it, smile, have massive fun for hours and hours and hours, and forget all about the fact that it is not a HD game. And the writing and dialog are damned good, too! Just because "aliens" and alien tech is NOT realistic, and it is a little absurd for some ghetto hood-rat to work his way up to Triads in San Fierro and Casinos in San Andreas, and end up working for a rogue government agency while stealing VTOL craft does NOT mean that the writing is bad. In fact, its BETTER for a sandbox game ala GTA, because those themes are so wild and over the top! IV is what happens when developers "try too hard" and not only make a story too boringly serious (which would have been forgivable) but then set about tethering the gameplay inextricably to the story and NOT allowing anything into the game which "did not realistically fit into the story world." This is why San Andreas (and V) are incredible fun and adventurous romps! Because nobody sat down with the goal of restricting the player with oppressive, depressing gameplay! IV fails, as a game, because it "tries too hard" to be a movie and ends up taking itself so damned seriously, that somebody on the team (probably a lot of somebodies) forgot that games are supposed to be FUN, and GTA games in particular. This is why games with vastly inferior budgets and production like Saints Row have done so well! Because in the interim, between San Andreas and V, the only sanbox GTA games we had that even tried to capture the glory and joy of San Andreas and the 3d Era GTA games were games like Saints Row and Just Cause 2. IV fails, quite simply, because it is pompous, preachy, preening, and condescendingly tries to rope the player into some lugubriously fashioned story where the gamer is punished for "coloring outside the lines." San Andreas and V blur the lines and bring the fun! And I like it when developers put effort into the story and characters (very important part of a game for me), you clearly don't care about that and thats fine too. IV was still fun for me and plenty of others too, you don't need over the top missions (like black project or Monkey Business), explosions, dumb jokes and jetpacks for a game to be fun. Thats a childish way of thinking imho. In fact SA would have been better without all that nonsense and just focused more on the gangbanging part. Thats why the LS part of the story is still the best. It jumps the shark after that.

Since there are a lot of comparisons between IV and San Andreas, and V is modeled to a large extent after the philosophy of SA, let's juxtapose SA with IV: In a nutshell, San Andreas is what happens when a GTA game centers around the gameplay, the over-the-top fun, and the excitement of wild, zany action. It is a game that you can literally laugh out loud while playing it, smile, have massive fun for hours and hours and hours, and forget all about the fact that it is not a HD game. And the writing and dialog are damned good, too! Just because "aliens" and alien tech is NOT realistic, and it is a little absurd for some ghetto hood-rat to work his way up to Triads in San Fierro and Casinos in San Andreas, and end up working for a rogue government agency while stealing VTOL craft does NOT mean that the writing is bad. In fact, its BETTER for a sandbox game ala GTA, because those themes are so wild and over the top! IV is what happens when developers "try too hard" and not only make a story too boringly serious (which would have been forgivable) but then set about tethering the gameplay inextricably to the story and NOT allowing anything into the game which "did not realistically fit into the story world." This is why San Andreas (and V) are incredible fun and adventurous romps! Because nobody sat down with the goal of restricting the player with oppressive, depressing gameplay! IV fails, as a game, because it "tries too hard" to be a movie and ends up taking itself so damned seriously, that somebody on the team (probably a lot of somebodies) forgot that games are supposed to be FUN, and GTA games in particular. This is why games with vastly inferior budgets and production like Saints Row have done so well! Because in the interim, between San Andreas and V, the only sanbox GTA games we had that even tried to capture the glory and joy of San Andreas and the 3d Era GTA games were games like Saints Row and Just Cause 2. IV fails, quite simply, because it is pompous, preachy, preening, and condescendingly tries to rope the player into some lugubriously fashioned story where the gamer is punished for "coloring outside the lines." San Andreas and V blur the lines and bring the fun!

What is better in sp? Everything is better in sp. Its actually well made game with quality and story and it makes somekind of sense, unlike that online bullsh*t. Gta online doesn't even feel like GTA. Its more like saints row....I hate that horrible online nonsense. I want game that haves good story, realistic setting and characters. Not that lame grief theft squaker online, in mythical land of invisible body parts peoples and air floating platforms. What is this? Rayman? I don't have anything against rayman. It was one of my favorite games in ps1, but GTA as an rayman world? What is that? Not working.

-No squeakers saying "hi everybody" 400x times and yelling. Yes you can mute them but every time you join a new lobby or job there's a brand new cast of mutants that need to be muted. And it takes a few minutes even to load the pause menu, then slowly tab over to the "players" tab to mute them every single time. Needless busywork for something that takes 5 seconds to do in other games. -No people playing distorted music over their mics -No instances of 2 (or sometimes more) grown men genuinely arguing whos the most "gangsta" and telling each other to "shut up fa**ot" -No hackers to ruin things. -No loading screens, disconnect messages or time outs. -No falling asleep after 10 minutes waiting up in the clouds for the game to load. -No "hardcore" players who have to attack every person on the server so you can walk down the street in peace and try to have some immersion. (f*ck passive mode. Sometimes i like to pull out the sniper rifle and zoom in on stuff without risking getting killed by some f*ckhead) -You can drive down the road without being cheaply destroyed by a jet or helicopter out nowhere (once again: f*ck passive mode, maybe I want to do a driveby in peace without being killed by some idiot other player?) -Realistic payments for jobs and heists so you dont have to play for 20 years or buy a Shark Card to save a sports car. -You dont have to BUY a sportscar because you can steal it and save it at home in your garage. (you know, commit Grand theft Auto?) -You can actually interact with pedestrians by pressing right on the dpad instead of playing a mute yet again (Even saints row 2 had pedestrian interaction AND the player could create a character with MULTIPLE sets of voices you can choose. And that was in 2008.) -You can have fun pitting the AI against itself with gang members without having some idiot come and ruin the fun That's just off the top of my head. If I come up with more I'll add.

Morning wood is a very common dirty joke. It is also seen as the name of the cemetery in Saints Row 2.

Suddenly everything is stolen, let's completely ignore the fact that most of these names are pretty common and let's aim with the finger at everything and yell "STOLEN!" Isn't "Morningwood" used in Saints Row: The Third as well? I'm pretty sure that game is way more recent than that Simpsons episode.

These are good points! When you put it that way, I think you are right that I have been mistakenly blaming the Euphoria Engine itself for problems that could easily be alleviated by keeping the engine and tweaking the physics to make them more fun-friendly. IV may handle shooting damage better than V, you may be right about that. The truth is that when I played IV, the ability to stand off against the cops was so downgraded from past GTA games because, as Rockstar said, they wanted the gamer to have more "consequences for their actions" than past GTA games. So if V is downgraded even more from that, then that is unfortunate. If that is true, then Cheatz may be correct in what he is saying, at least insofar as the gunplay is concerned. (So I edited my previous response to him in accordance with this) I will say that the gunplay in neither game is nearly as much fun as Saints Row or past GTA games. But those games aren't meant to be as restrictive in this regard.

Why on earth would anyone want rid of Euphoria? For me it's one of the things that really make GTA stand out against the likes of Saints Row or Watch Dogs. I mean honestly what's your problem with it, Chirovette? It's an amazing ragdoll engine. What could be better? Realism is a very good thing when it doesn't affect your player's health to the same degree as it does everything else... It gives variety and greater interaction with the world through experimentation. How you'd want to go back to SA physics I don't really know.